Talk:West Germany

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.94.171.126 (talk) at 03:51, 26 July 2014 (→‎Requested moves). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wrong

The article is totally wrong. There wasn't an old FRG and a new one. It is the same FRG, because eastern Germany joined the FRG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.245.133 (talk • contribs)

Yes. One example is the Category:Former member states of the United Nations. So 2 German states left the UN in 1990, and a new one was admitted? Hilarious nonsense. This article shows nicely what is wrong with English Wikipedia (and with those Wikipedias that translate content and POV from the English one). -- Matthead  Discuß   23:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The articles name should be changed to "Federal Republic of Germany 1949-1990". The term "West Germany" is slang and not proper phrasing for an encyclopaedic article. You can still direct searches for the colloquial term "West Germany" to this page, but the name of the article as it is now is not appropriate at all, it is just a sign of lacking quality control. It is the souvereign right of a country to give herself a name, and the official name in English is "Federal Republic of Germany" and nothing else. If there will be no objections in the next days i will change the articles name to the correct term. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

West Germany is not slang but an example if WP:COMMONNAME for that period. By all means redirect Federal Republic of Germany 1949-1990 the other way. Agathoclea (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your thought. I'm aware of this WP policy. But i thought this will be superseded by neutrality and political correctness. If not clarified, that this is colloquial language, the term "West Germany" can be considered derogatory, and i am sure enough people feel that way, and i guess this is why this topic pops up from time to time, people expect better from an encyclopaedic article.
But even if the "common name" policy is more important, the usual way to distugiush between the two German countries of that time was the usage of the phrase BRD (even in everyday language more common than Westdeutschland), which translates into "Federal Republic of Germany". So again the conclusion is, the title has to be changed. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know where you are, but people round here (Wales) refered to it as West Germany. Even using the abreviation as you suggest is clearly not politically neutral as the article shows and I had a workmate back in Germany docked points in his exam for using it. Agathoclea (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure, that until the 1970s the newspapers referred to it almost always simply as Germany.Henrig (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Germany? Or in English media? In a Western context or in an international context? Agathoclea (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the perception of two German states and therefore on which occasions the term was mentioned. For instance, before 1968 there was only one German Olympia team. Until then, sport events were hardly a cause for such a perception. Furthermore: Only a few states in the world recognized the GDR as a second German state. Their view of Germany included for a long time predominantely only the western German state, which claimed an exclusive mandate for the entire German people. Btw., until the 1960s the GDR did the same. Therefore, the terms West Germany and East Germany likely for a long time were mentioned predominantly in cases, when the context made it necessary.Henrig (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent quite some times comparing old movies with their later remakes. Much that did not need explaining initially needed to to be explained (spelled out) in a later version because the context got lost. Today hardly anybody would know what the Great War was. We know it as World War I. While in 1966 in was blindingly obvious that the team involved was West Germany and therefore a mention of Germany would suffice today in retrospect we can not leave in unambiguated. Also there are enaugh sources closer to the time refering to it like that. Yes it is political posturing - Being in the English language wikipedia we use English usage and English usage would have had a Western bias supporting West German bias. Agathoclea (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the early decades after WWII the usual term for West Germany was simply Germany and West Germany was predominatly used in cases, when the context made it necessary for clarification. But this context arose already before the establishment of the Federal Republic. Therfore it's wrong to equalize West Germany with the state of the Federal Republic of Germany. The term describes the same topic only for the time betw. 1949 and 1990. But the establishment of a politically defined territory, which became known as West Germany, began between 1945 and 1949, while the Fed. Rep. of Germany is a still existing state. This source of a frequent confusion should be corrected in the article! Henrig (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see any harm in this solution: refer the serch term "West Germany" to the article and name the article "Federal Republic of Germany 1949-1990". Everyone will find the article, everyone will know what it is about, and this even helpes make a point clearer that should be made for someone searching for a "West Germany"-article and wanting to educate oneself about the topic. I don't see a reason for anyone objecting to that, other than the possible motivation to use a slightly derogatory term rather than a political neutral term, and that's not a good reason. Jonathan0007 (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear

This article is still riddled with the private philosophies of a small number of wikipedia authors, making the text a mess of what is mostly a good overview over West Germany, interspersed with endeavours in hairsplitting over the term "Germany". Insofar as there are incorrect statements, I am going to remove them. Anorak2 (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically false claims deleted: That the international car registration code was "D" only in West Germany, that "Deutschland" was commonly used as term for West Germany, that West German delegations in international events would always take part under the name "Germany". Anorak2 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Client state of the United States?

The USA were the predominance and protecting power of the Western World during the Cold War, but it would be nonsense to describe the Federal Republic of Germany or any other Westeuropean state of the 1970s or 1980s in any way as a client state of the USA, according to the definition of this term in Wikipedia. A source about the time of the Korean War, which mentions this term (Does it?) is here not helpfull. And a book about Franco-German relations during the 1960s neither. De Gaulle, who left the military part of the Nato for more independence from the USA, often urged Germany to prefer a closer relationship to France than to the USA. The German leader's answer always was, that only the USA could protect West Europe. A French press reaction of this time was to blame West Germany for beeing a client state of the USA. (Unthinkable in the 1970s, during the time of Helmut Schmidt and Giscard d'Estaing. Henrig (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

West Germany was militarily dominated by US and other Western forces during the Cold War, plus it depended on US financial aid through the Marshall Plan to rebuild its economy in the first place. The military domination existed into the 1980s and began dissolving in the 1990s. Plus East Germany during the 1960s was economically recovered, that doesn't change its widely acknowledged domination by the Soviet Union.--R-41 (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is your argument really that the US dominated West Germany in the same way that the USSR dominated Eest Germany, as you imply at the end? -- Nidator T / C 20:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No de: iw

There is no [[de:]] interwiki? -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because this artificial state does not exist in the German language. For the history of the Federal Republic of Germany before 1990 see de:Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (bis 1990)--Beliar (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonn was not capital, but still Berlin

On West-German's point of view, not Bonn, but Berlin was still the capital. Bonn was the place of the gouvement and both parliaments (Upper and Lower House). It' s right that Bonn was the de facto capital, but the reason why Bonn and not the more important Francfort became the place of the parliament was, that Bonn was seen as provisorium. Flk-Brdrf (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonn was the capital , yes it was provisional but it was the official capital and NOT just seat of parliament and government — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.146.247 (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
berlin being capital and Bonn being seat of Parliament/government was only the situation after reunification and before partliment government moved to berlin109.192.146.247 (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Education During Separation

When the wall was up, Berlin's school was taught differently depending on which side a person lived on. For example, in West Berlin, the students would be taught English and French while East Berlin would learn Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdelga2093 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The infobox is wrong as the Federal Republic of Germany did not seize to exist after 1990. Sorry this whole article is politically, historically and by constitutional and international  law completely wrong and out of space. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. "West Germany" was a common term to refer to the FRG before its expansion in 1990. The U.S. and Canada, which are also federations, have added states/provinces/territories over time, but we do not treat each annexation as establishing a new country. TFD (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. The (FRG) Federal Republic of Germany did not cease to exist. "West Germany" is nothing more than the colloquial English language name that (until 1990) was used for the Federal Republic of Germany. According to constitutional and international law, the "enlarged" Federal Republic of Germany (known simply as "Germany") is thus the continuation of the pre-1990 Federal Republic of Germany. --IIIraute (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concur also, see? Once West Germany is not a country or a state, it should not be forced in peoples' place of birth, if you ask me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well should we bin parts of the Infobox then and rename the article or merge it with FRG main article?--Catflap08 (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"West Germany" was a country for 41 years. If South Korea were to absorb North Korea, would Wikipedia ignore the sixty-plus years of division and just have one big Korea article? I really hate German hyper-nationalism.
Paul Austin (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Germany is and never was a country. The FRG is a country the infobox is simply not correct. Why should that have anything to do with nationalism if the displayed information in the infobox is wrong? Nobody contests the articles content. If one looks at the German counterpart of the article the map showed in the intro is far more informative on what the article is about. The FRG exists since 1949. --Catflap08 (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC) We don't need an info box for West Germany. It would be like having a different article for the USA before Texas joined.86.181.160.231 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last revert of an infobox came with the edit summary '"west germany" is the same germany that exists today and has existed since 1949"'. I am tempted to revert because that is not true. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope sorry, West Germany was never a Country. The Federal Republic of Germany exists since 1949 – and not until 1990. The text describes the FRG before Unification so far so good, but the Infobox is misleading in the sense to indicate that the FRG seized to exist in 1990. What used to be the GDR joined the Federal Republic of Germany hence joined a federation … same goes for the Saarland during the 1950`s. The article may be fine as it is but in contrast to many “Peoples Republics” of the East the FRG still exists. One can certainly add an infobox but the one that was in place was factually simply false. It is not too much to ask to follow the perimeters international law sets. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did the capital change? --John (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope the seat of government changed. Which can be seen by the fact that Bonn was called Bundesstadt after unification. Having that in mind Brasil moved its capital to Brasilia. The issue of a capital was tricky as Bonn was regarded only as a provisional seat of government. This is also reflected in the East Germany issue. There officially never was an East Germany but a GDR. Same goes for West Germany – there never was a country officially called that name. It is kind of dubious to label something with an infobox giving an official character to something that never was the case. I do get common name issue … but sorry the FRG’s status as a country never changed since 1949. Allied occupation ended in 1990 yes but still nothing changed in terms of a federation. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise. Did a wall come down? Did the borders change? --John (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wall came down and the GDR joined the FRG – no new state was founded – only one seized to exist and that was the GDR. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did the borders change? I think you mean "ceased", not "seized", by the way. --John (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the borders changed as they did when Saarland joined and as did the borders of the USA changed with every state that joined the union. Keeping in mind that due to constitutional mattes the unification was always the primary goal of the Grundgesetz (constitution of Germany) hence even in schoolbooks the borders of the GDR, where shown differently compared to other states. Bottom line however is that the FRG was not refounded after unification – and this what the old infobox hinted at. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. I think you will struggle to portray it as being like the United States, which had no wall, did not change its capital, and did not absorb another country. Good luck anyway though. --John (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see it as a struggle but the infobox was simply wrong – the FRG did not stop to exist in 1990 and when being exact a country called West Germany simply never existed. Secondly the FRG did not absorb the GDR but what once was the GDR democratically decided to join the Federal Republic. For a short while before unification there was the discussion of a confederation between the FRG and the GDR this indeed would have been a new sort of state. Even though the German unification was from the beginning a aim that Germany’s constitution was based on there does exist a procedure on how a territory can join the Federal Republic as was the case with the GDR. This provision was made by section 23 of the German Constitution. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise your campaign here was in support of an edit you had already made. That isn't ok. Please don't restore your edit until consensus is reached. Some more questions for you to think about as you continue to learn about this topic; did West Germany have full sovereignty? Did the new country change its postal codes after reunification? --John (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are quite a few editors involved on this issue. This was my first edit on the issue for over a week following an unexplained IP-edit. Referring to your question certainly postal codes had to change as the West and East used the same system that led to same codes. When you refer to full sovereignty the allied forces lost their special status. Never the less there was no re-founding of the FRG, nor did the national anthem change, nor did the flag change, nor did the currency change (the east even joined the currency prior to unification). Most of all however, did the constitution or governmental/political system of the FRG change? No. Did the FRG had to reapply or renegotiate its membership in international organisations like EU or UN? No. Please keep in mind that the FRG was a member of the UN before the GDR was. Was Neutrality hence leaving NATO discussed, yes. When one looks at the German equivalent to the article its title translates as “History of the Federal Republic of Germany (until 1990)”, the infobox shows the territorial changes including a differentiation before and after 1957. In the end the infobox is, as also others have pointed out, misleading giving the impression the country, hence the political system of the FRG, changed after 1990 which is not the case. There never were two FRGs, but different phases which is the case in the history of many countries. When one looks at the Soviet Union it clearly did cease to exist when the Russian Federation was founded. So either one would have to change the article’s title, or alter the infobox. As I have pointed out West Germany was never ever a country’s official name which then makes it even more bizarre to add an infobox with a country’s official name that exists since 1949 until present. Legally and formally the unification took place with the GDR (or five new federal states) acceding to the FRG. In the end of the day an article, including its infobox and title, should be as unambiguous as possible which is not the case here. Certainly one could decide that unambiguity is a secondary matter in Wikipedia, one then has to live with mediocrity, factual errors and smattering.--Catflap08 (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand all the points you are making. On an issue like this it is better to seek consensus before changing the article. The infobox has (I think) been there for quite a while. What is the hurry? --John (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see this discussion on the current talk pages resurfaces since 2011. The criticism of the current article is always about the same issue. In my mind deleting the infobox would ease some of the criticism and its obvious why the infobox is misleading. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox is misleading, should delete 86.181.163.171 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some interesting viewpoints above, but far too many that are distorted by their holders not being native English speakers or by those who would try to impose another language's idiom on English common usage. Before reunification there certainly was a country that was commonly called West Germany in English. Whether it was officially called something else is neither here not there; that was its common name in the language of this encyclopaedia. Note that the main page for Germany that is linked from the infobox does cover this period and gives (in the first line!) the official state title. So West Germany is not being entirely separated from the present constitution of the FDR, but the independent existence of West Germany for many decades certainly deserves its own page as society, laws and culture in that country were markedly different to those in the east. People bellyaching about how the FDR didn't change in 1990 and that USA and Canada don't have additional pages are conveniently overlooking the fact that there are plenty of countries for whom we do have additional pages. Take a look at the succession of pages for United Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom. This is exactly the same structure that the West Germany and Germany pages have. A top level page with the simple country name (United Kingdom; Germany) not the full state title (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; Federal Republic of Germany), that describes most of the history of that country's territory and constitution through many years, with specific pages for isolated periods of that country's existence. This page and its infobox are fine as it is; go and do something more useful. Pyrope 16:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In both articles, that is East Germany and West Germany, the “common name” argument is quite a bit misused and overstretched. At a closer look this also reveals factual errors. As in this case the infobox. Also the native speaker argument is to say the least – absurd. I grew up bilingual and English is a Lingua Franca so just because the editing language is English editing the English Wikipedia is not restricted to native speakers only. The German equivalent to this article solved the problem by naming the article “History of the Federal Republic of Germany (until 1990)” (Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (bis 1990)). It beats me why some find it hard to name both articles factually correct and use the other terms as a redirect --- but oh no … god and behold the reader could learn something – now we don’t want that do we? In one incident a user said he was sick of “German Nationalism” which to my mind was downright racist and insulting to say the least. As I am binational (British/German) I find it highly irritating that “German Bashing” seems quite acceptable to some here – which in turn means, that the racism and discrimination problem is not a one way road. There NEVER was a county named neither West Germany nor East Germany – never ever. And yes the articles on United Kingdom, Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland use the also factually correct names referring to a certain timeline. In German the UK is colloquially and commonly referred to as “England”. Never the less in the German Wikipedia articles exist on Vereinigtes Königreich (UK), Schottland (Scotland), Wales, Nordirland (Nothern Ireland), Isle of Man and so forth. Thankfully they did not follow the common name concept here by calling the whole lot “England” – which as a half Scot would bug me big times. In the end the advice to do something useful is to convey correct information or simply not edit. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at all misused. The concept exists due to the principle of least astonishment. In other words, when someone is looking for an article on West Germany (the most likely search in English) they should find an article titled "West Germany". The article may then tell them (as this one does) that this is a commonly used term for a state that was formally called the FDR, but that sort of didactic role is best played by prose, where the difference can be explained properly, rather than the title, where it cannot. People in Germany know what the Federal Republic of Germany is, therefore naming an article using that convention in the German Wikipedia makes sense. Trying to use that logic here, which is not a resource aimed at Germans, is daft. The England example is spurious, because while "England" may be the colloquial term Germans use to refer to the UK it is also the term that Germans presumably use to refer to the constituent nation as well. Therefore the term is ambiguous and so the UK article is titled to remove ambiguity. If the German colloquial term for the UK, used in respected media sources, was something like "Tommyland" then no ambiguity would exist and German Wikipedia would be free to call their article that if they so chose. Whether they would or not is up to them. Quite how you work out that calling a country West Germany amounts to "German Bashing" is entirely unclear. Just because some German speakers can also speak English (shock!) doesn't mean that their interpretation of English usage should hold for all articles on German subjects at the English Wikipedia. Similarly, what we do here should not limit the manner in which German Wikipedia arrange and title their articles. To impose one culture on another, as you are attempting, is actually pretty racist so do please look to your own behaviour before slinging mud at others. Here we use the same terms and syntax as would be used in native English sources and as most native English speakers would understand it. Insisting on absolute lexicographical punctiliousness in article titles is certainly not useful in a general usage encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Pyrope 20:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my books it just seems though that the German Wikipedia is simply politically and factually more correct then. The terms West and East Germany are simply a Cold War product and in some parts of the world that war may still be going on – but! – Such countries never ever existed – also in other leading English encyclopaedias AND CIA resources nor in the UN. Even the simple English version Wikipedia is able to follow that logic. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion below, where you suggestion was shot down in flames. Whether or not there ever was a country officially called West Germany is utterly irrelevant. The de facto name for the FDR during that period in the English speaking world was and is "West Germany", and I really don't see your problem with that. There is certainly nothing at all politically incorrect about its usage. Perhaps West and East Germany have some derogatory meanings in German? I don't know, but they certainly do not in English. Languages use different terms and words for entities from other language cultures all the time, that's just how it is. For example, there isn't and never was a city in the UK called "Londres", yet I don't see armies of French-speaking Brits heading over to French Wikipedia demanding that they change their article name to "London". Invoking official documents (CIA, UN, etc.) when talking about information presented in a general use encyclopaedia is, again, spurious. Simple English Wikipedia is specifically and explicitly not aimed at native English speakers, so again, using terms that are within the native English idiom isn't nearly so important. Pyrope 20:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: CLOSED as this is basically a duplication of a closure 3 days ago of a similar discussion at Talk:East Germany#Before an edit war starts. That was closed as a consensus to keep that article at the current name per WP:COMMONNAME. When the discussion was started by the editor who opened this one it was made clear by the initiator that it was meant to apply to this article as well. Thus a new RM here is bad faith forum shopping and this RM should never have been started. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– I would like to request the move as on both pages the discussion has been going for quite some time and in my books the WP:COMMONNAME issue just does not pull anymore. I have no problems at all to use the current names as a disambiguation. I believe an article, also its title, should be as correct as possible. I do live in the FRG and meet English speaking expats quite regularly and nearly 25 years after the unification the term East Germany is, just as in German, used to describe what once was the GDR. I also sensed a slight discrimination against German editors who brought up the issue in the past and as a German/British binational I find that highly irritating. As already stated in the talk page the German Wikipedia differentiates quite well between Vereinigtes Königreich (UK), Vereinigtes Königreich Großbritannien und Irland (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), Königreich Großbritannien (Kingdom of Great Britain), Schottland (Scotland), Wales, Nordirland (Northern Ireland), England, Isle of Man and so forth even though the common name for the whole lot in German would be “England” and as a half Scot this would bug me. Catflap08 (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is also an article History of Germany (1945–90). --Boson (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Most reliable sources since Ostpolitik in the early 1970s typically name articles about the now former GDR as "German Democratic Republic." Previously they had used the term "East Germany" because it was considered to be part of the Federal Republic of Germany until they renounced their claim, and recognized the GDR. Similarly articles about the two Koreas still use the terms "North" and "South" because both parts are either part of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or the Republic of Korea, depending on which claim is correct. Since the Republic of China's (Taiwan's) claim to mainland China is no longer recognized, we now refer to mainland China as the People's Republic of China. This outdated naming has a Cold War feel to it, which detracts from the appearance of neutrality.
I think the West Germany article should be merged into Federal Republic of Germany, since the FRG is the same state it was when it was established. All that has changed is that it has enlarged its borders to incorporate some of the territory that had been part of Germany before 1945. Both Canada and the U.S. have substantially increased their borders since their foundings, yet we not pretend there is no state continuity. If a spin-off article is necessary, it should be the "History of the FRG (1949-1990). It is after all about a period of history of the FRG rather than a previously existing state.
TFD (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support This needs to be done, finally. Otherwise we'll have this discussion coming up every few months, sucking up all resources that should be properly invested in improving the actual articles. Let's go ahead with it. -- All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as in discussions above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I still see West Germany and East Germany as being the common names. Canuck89 (have words with me) 00:35, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:COMMONAME still applies. I still get a significant number in Google searches. East Germany gets way more than German Democratic Republic. Likewise West Germany versus Federal Republic of Germany WP:COMMONNAME is the policy here on the English Wikipedia, to use the most common name used in English-language sources, not the longer official name. This concept exists because of the principle of least astonishment, especially for the benefit of the average native English-speaking reader. Based on the English-language sources I see, I do not see overwhelming evidence that they now predominantly use the longer official names. Article titles here should not be based on what the Wikipedias in other languages are doing, nor should they renamed just merely to stop the same discussion from repeating every few months. In addition, any claims that the current titles may violate WP:POVTITLE should be backed with evidence by reliable sources, not merely the personal opinions of a handful of editors. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:UCN -- use the common name, not the official one. That these two states as documented no longer exist and that they still occur in popular culture and fiction as is, means that the official names are less and less relevant. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is English Wikipedia, and we refer to things by what they're most commonly called in English, e.g. North Korea, New York City, Rhode Island. (Though strangely it's Cannabis (drug), not Marijuana.) Tezero (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Germany&oldid=618499943"